cost, value, price
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
The cost of a good is what the manufacturer had to shell out to
produce the good.
The price of a good is what the manufacturer charges others for it.
The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open
competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
People often conflate cost and price, since the manufacturers price on
the good is my cost to acquire it. This is relatively harmless.
"dumping" is where a manufacturer sets his price below both cost and
value, in order to drive out competition, and then acquire a monopoly
stance--making it possible for him to then raise the price
significantly above value.
Free software is therefore not "dumping" for just the same reasons
that food pantries, free symphony concerts, and public education are
not dumping--they are not founded on an attempt to seize monopoly
control and later raise prices above value.
The value of a good is based on a hypothetical open competetive
market, and is thus producer-independent. The value of a good is
independent of what its cost or price happens to be for any one
manufacturer.
Thomas
Nils Goesche
There is no need to start a million of new threads on this. This
is still comp.lang.lisp, remember?
> The cost of a good is what the manufacturer had to shell out to
> produce the good.
>
> The price of a good is what the manufacturer charges others for it.
>
> The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open
> competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
This sounds too metaphysical. A better definition would be: The
value of a good is what people /do/ pay for it. Because there is
no other way to find out. The requirement of the market being
``open and competitive'' seems bogus. A black market is
perfectly fine, too, if you want to find out what people are
willing to pay for something.
> "dumping" is where a manufacturer sets his price below both cost and
> value, in order to drive out competition, and then acquire a monopoly
> stance--making it possible for him to then raise the price
> significantly above value.
No. The value would simply change with the price. It doesn't
make sense to distiguish much, here. If there is /one/ exchange,
of /one/ share of General Motors, the value of General Motors
shares changes to the price at which that exchange was made.
That simple.
> Free software is therefore not "dumping" for just the same reasons
> that food pantries, free symphony concerts, and public education are
> not dumping--they are not founded on an attempt to seize monopoly
> control and later raise prices above value.
People /do/ pay for food pantries and free symphony concerts
etc.: By their taxes.
> The value of a good is based on a hypothetical open competetive
> market, and is thus producer-independent. The value of a good is
> independent of what its cost or price happens to be for any one
> manufacturer.
No, it's not.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID 0xC66D6E6F
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> > The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open
> > competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
>
> This sounds too metaphysical. A better definition would be: The
> value of a good is what people /do/ pay for it.
No, that's the price of the good. See, there's a reason we have
different words for these things.
> Because there is
> no other way to find out. The requirement of the market being
> ``open and competitive'' seems bogus. A black market is
> perfectly fine, too, if you want to find out what people are
> willing to pay for something.
Um, the point of the word "value" is to try and identify something
which is producer-independent, which is "inherent in the good"
somehow. Since we are no longer medievals, we know that value is
contextual on plenty of social factors. Since we are not Marx, we
know that value is not just a measure of how much effort went into
producing a thing.
Value is something people assign to objects, but it's something
producer-independent. Value is what the price *would* be if there
were a commodity market for a thing. That's just what it means; if
you don't like that definition, then I'd advise you not to use the
word, and stick to "price".
> > Free software is therefore not "dumping" for just the same reasons
> > that food pantries, free symphony concerts, and public education are
> > not dumping--they are not founded on an attempt to seize monopoly
> > control and later raise prices above value.
>
> People /do/ pay for food pantries and free symphony concerts
> etc.: By their taxes.
Um, no. First, free symphony concerts and food pantries, in the
United States, at least, are *not* principally funded by taxes.
The price of a good is what the *recipient* pays. Because public
education is available even to those who do not pay taxes at all, the
taxes are not part of the price. Or, if you like, the costs of
producing public education are externalized, precisely so that the
price can be very low.
> > The value of a good is based on a hypothetical open competetive
> > market, and is thus producer-independent. The value of a good is
> > independent of what its cost or price happens to be for any one
> > manufacturer.
>
> No, it's not.
You have just decided that "value" is to be synonymous with "price",
but that's a pointless game. If you want to say that "value" is not a
meaningful concept, then so be it; but what I gave is the general
economic definition of the term.
Thomas
Rahul Jain
> The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open
> competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
Hmm, I was under the impression that use value was more like the value
to the consumer. That is, how much more productive the consumer is
with the good than without the good. I guess your "value" here is the
"potential sale value"? But open source software exists in an open
competitive market. Anyone could come and create something
better. However, the use value of that new product minus the use value
of the open source product must be greater than the sale price of the
new product for it to be successful.
--
-> -/ - Rahul Jain - \- <-
-> -\ http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- mailto:rj...@techie.com /- <-
-> -/ "Structure is nothing if it is all you got. Skeletons spook \- <-
-> -\ people if [they] try to walk around on their own. I really /- <-
-> -/ wonder why XML does not." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp \- <-
|--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-|
(c)1996-2002, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> tb+u...@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open
> > competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
>
> Hmm, I was under the impression that use value was more like the value
> to the consumer. That is, how much more productive the consumer is
> with the good than without the good. I guess your "value" here is the
> "potential sale value"?
Yes, I was speaking of sale value, not use value.
> But open source software exists in an open competitive
> market. Anyone could come and create something better. However, the
> use value of that new product minus the use value of the open source
> product must be greater than the sale price of the new product for
> it to be successful.
Excellently said.
Nils Goesche
> Nils Goesche <n...@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > > The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open
> > > competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
> >
> > This sounds too metaphysical. A better definition would be: The
> > value of a good is what people /do/ pay for it.
>
> No, that's the price of the good. See, there's a reason we have
> different words for these things.
Yes, but it's the other way around, more like in your first post:
If I demanded $1000 for the can of beer standing right in front
of me right now, that would be its price. Nobody would pay that
much, so that clearly is not its value.
> > Because there is
> > no other way to find out. The requirement of the market being
> > ``open and competitive'' seems bogus. A black market is
> > perfectly fine, too, if you want to find out what people are
> > willing to pay for something.
>
> Um, the point of the word "value" is to try and identify something
> which is producer-independent, which is "inherent in the good"
> somehow. Since we are no longer medievals, we know that value is
> contextual on plenty of social factors. Since we are not Marx, we
> know that value is not just a measure of how much effort went into
> producing a thing.
>
> Value is something people assign to objects, but it's something
> producer-independent.
Right so far, but...
> Value is what the price *would* be if there
> were a commodity market for a thing. That's just what it means; if
> you don't like that definition, then I'd advise you not to use the
> word, and stick to "price".
There is no need for a ``would''. That's too metaphysical. The
value of a thing is /measured/ by what people pay for it.
Occam's razor. The price of a thing is what I demand for it,
even if noone buys; these usually coincide, if I really want to
sell. I didn't invent this definition, either; it's pretty common.
> > > Free software is therefore not "dumping" for just the same reasons
> > > that food pantries, free symphony concerts, and public education are
> > > not dumping--they are not founded on an attempt to seize monopoly
> > > control and later raise prices above value.
> >
> > People /do/ pay for food pantries and free symphony concerts
> > etc.: By their taxes.
>
> Um, no. First, free symphony concerts and food pantries, in the
> United States, at least, are *not* principally funded by taxes.
In Germany, they are. Either way: Somebody does pay for the
food... ``There is no such thing as a free lunch'' (Milton Friedman?)
> The price of a good is what the *recipient* pays.
In fact, it is what's printed on the price tag. This usually
coincides with what is paid.
> Because public education is available even to those who do not
> pay taxes at all,
Everybody pays taxes, and lots of them. Everytime you buy a
goddamn lolly you are paying taxes.
> the taxes are not part of the price. Or, if you like, the
> costs of producing public education are externalized, precisely
> so that the price can be very low.
You have to add what the students pay with what the state pays
for the education. This will be /very/ expensive. One of the
universities in Berlin, the Freie Universitaet, charges its
students (almost) nothing. But it costs the tax payer, that's
me, about a /billion/ German Marks /each/ year.
> > > The value of a good is based on a hypothetical open competetive
> > > market, and is thus producer-independent. The value of a good is
> > > independent of what its cost or price happens to be for any one
> > > manufacturer.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> You have just decided that "value" is to be synonymous with "price",
> but that's a pointless game. If you want to say that "value" is not a
> meaningful concept, then so be it; but what I gave is the general
> economic definition of the term.
All I am saying is that the value of a thing is its price at the
time an exchange is made. There might be several parties charged
at the same time, then it's the sum of all charges. I did /not/
invent this.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> > Value is what the price *would* be if there
> > were a commodity market for a thing. That's just what it means; if
> > you don't like that definition, then I'd advise you not to use the
> > word, and stick to "price".
>
> There is no need for a ``would''. That's too metaphysical. The
> value of a thing is /measured/ by what people pay for it.
> Occam's razor. The price of a thing is what I demand for it,
> even if noone buys; these usually coincide, if I really want to
> sell. I didn't invent this definition, either; it's pretty common.
You are conflating market price with value. Look, if the notion of
value is "too metaphysical" for you, then I'd advise you not to use
it. But redefining it is not likely to improve understanding.
> In Germany, they are. Either way: Somebody does pay for the
> food... ``There is no such thing as a free lunch'' (Milton Friedman?)
That's right. The food has a *cost* regardless. But the cost isn't
the point here. There are many things of great value with almost no
cost, and many things of great cost with almost no value. (Which is
true for both sale value and use value).
> > Because public education is available even to those who do not
> > pay taxes at all,
>
> Everybody pays taxes, and lots of them. Everytime you buy a
> goddamn lolly you are paying taxes.
In the US, public education is usually funded only by property taxes,
which are paid only by landowners. Lessors usually internalize that
cost, so that people who rent housing pay property tax indirectly too.
However, public education is available to those who don't pay the tax
in any way, shape, or form.
> You have to add what the students pay with what the state pays
> for the education. This will be /very/ expensive. One of the
> universities in Berlin, the Freie Universitaet, charges its
> students (almost) nothing. But it costs the tax payer, that's
> me, about a /billion/ German Marks /each/ year.
Yes, it has a high cost. But a very low price.
> All I am saying is that the value of a thing is its price at the
> time an exchange is made. There might be several parties charged
> at the same time, then it's the sum of all charges. I did /not/
> invent this.
That is known as "market sale value", but it's not intrinsic value.
Intrinsic value is defined as what market sale value would be in if
the market were commodified. If you find that "too metaphysical",
then I'd advise not using.
Thomas
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> ``There is no such thing as a free lunch'' (Milton Friedman?)
No, it's the other great Libertarian intellectual -- Robert Heinlein.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Paul Dietz
> There is no need for a ``would''. That's too metaphysical. The
> value of a thing is /measured/ by what people pay for it.
Someone gives you, as a gift, 1000 euros.
Since you didn't pay anything for this, by your reasoning
it has no value.
Next time this happens please send it to me. I'll pay you
1 euro for it. You'll come out ahead!
Paul
Nils Goesche
> Nils Goesche <n...@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > All I am saying is that the value of a thing is its price at the
> > time an exchange is made. There might be several parties charged
> > at the same time, then it's the sum of all charges. I did /not/
> > invent this.
>
> That is known as "market sale value", but it's not intrinsic value.
> Intrinsic value is defined as what market sale value would be in if
> the market were commodified. If you find that "too metaphysical",
> then I'd advise not using.
Look, apparently we have learned from different schools of
economy. I don't think it is of any value (pun intended) if we
discuss this further (we are /still/ in comp.lang.lisp), like
``It's defined this way'' - ``No, it's defined that way'' - ``No,
it's not'' ad infinitum. And I have to go to bed now (about nine
hours later here?). Good night.
Brian Spilsbury
> tb+u...@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > The price of a good is what the manufacturer charges others for it.
> >
> > The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open
> > competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
>
> This sounds too metaphysical. A better definition would be: The
> value of a good is what people /do/ pay for it. Because there is
> no other way to find out. The requirement of the market being
> ``open and competitive'' seems bogus. A black market is
> perfectly fine, too, if you want to find out what people are
> willing to pay for something.
Remember that labour is worth something.
The amount of time that someone is willing to invest can be translated
into a monetary value if you like, and this is where the value of free
software is derived from.
How much time you're willing to spend stuffing about with it.
Of course some people's time is worth more than others :)
Regards,
Brian Spilsbury
Erik Naggum
| No, it's the other great Libertarian intellectual -- Robert Heinlein.
That must be the worst insult on this newsgroup so far. Heinlein himself
expressed extreme disgust with the Libertarians who took him to heart --
they had, in his view, grasped exactly nothing about what he had tried to
do, which seems to be a recurring theme among authors who are taken to
heart by Libertarians. What Heinlein did so well was write credible
stories that explored political views that differed in important ways
from today's prevailing views with credible what-if--scenarios based on
possible technological futures. They are in fact so credible that people
who had read Stranger in a Strenge Land wrote him angry letters accusing
him of betraying them when they read his more "military society" books,
which they apparently found equally credible. Heinlein was the author
who taught me what "suspension of disbelief" was _really_ about, but it
is a suspension, not an abdication, like the Libertarians tend to think.
///
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum
| Remember that labour is worth something.
I thought this part of Marxism was the most resoundingly debunked. :)
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> * Brian Spilsbury
> | Remember that labour is worth something.
>
> I thought this part of Marxism was the most resoundingly debunked. :)
Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about
that), but the value of a good is not the sum of the effort that went
in to it (this is his great mistake).
Matthias Blume
> Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about
> that), but the value of a good is not the sum of the effort that went
> in to it (this is his great mistake).
IIRC, he (Marx) did not actually say that.
Matthias
Wolfhard Buß
Right. Marx defines the value of a commodity in terms of the
*socially necessary* labour time required for its production.
--
"Das Auto hat keine Zukunft. Ich setze aufs Pferd." Wilhelm II. (1859-1941)
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> Matthias Blume <matt...@shimizu-blume.com> writes:
>
> > tb+u...@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> >
> > > Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about
> > > that), but the value of a good is not the sum of the effort that went
> > > in to it (this is his great mistake).
> >
> > IIRC, he (Marx) did not actually say that.
>
> Right. Marx defines the value of a commodity in terms of the
> *socially necessary* labour time required for its production.
Yes indeed, I'm sorry for giving the cartoon version of Marx; I should
have been more careful.
Paul Foley
> Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> writes:
>> * Brian Spilsbury
>> | Remember that labour is worth something.
>>
>> I thought this part of Marxism was the most resoundingly debunked. :)
> Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about
> that),
Only if "zero" counts as "something"; but that's the same "something"
as "nothing".
--
" ... I told my doctor I got all the exercise I needed being a
pallbearer for all my friends who run and do exercises!"
-- Winston Churchill
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(#\@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> On 27 Mar 2002 11:10:00 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> writes:
> >> * Brian Spilsbury
> >> | Remember that labour is worth something.
> >>
> >> I thought this part of Marxism was the most resoundingly debunked. :)
>
> > Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about
> > that),
>
> Only if "zero" counts as "something"; but that's the same "something"
> as "nothing".
Huh? By all the measures here, labor is worth something. People can
and do pay dearly for it, it has use value, etc.
Paul Foley
No. People do not pay for it, they pay to avoid it. That's different.
Your labour is only worth something to the extent that it saves someone
else having to do it. That's an important distinction, because, for
example, you may only have to do very little labour to save someone
else a tremendous amount -- the value is the (large) amount saved, not
the (small) amount performed. Or you may have to do an enormous amount
of work to save very me little; the value I put on your labour only has
to do with what it saves me, with no regard whatsoever for what it
costs you -- what it costs you (i.e., labour) therefore has zero value.
--
In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with
reality at any point. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> No. People do not pay for it, they pay to avoid it. That's different.
I'm speaking of the market in labor that actually exists, nothing
more, nothing less. I can sell my labor. That's all I mean.
> Or you may have to do an enormous amount of work to save very me
> little; the value I put on your labour only has to do with what it
> saves me, with no regard whatsoever for what it costs you -- what it
> costs you (i.e., labour) therefore has zero value.
Eek, once again.
The *cost* of my labor is what it costs me to do the work--food, for
example, to sustain my body, and a variety of other intangibles.
The *price* of my labor is what I sell it for.
The *use value* of my labor is how much more productive it makes you.
The *price value* of my labor is what I could sell it for in an open
competitive market. (According to my definition, at least; some
apparently find this controversial).
Thomas
Brian Spilsbury
> * Brian Spilsbury
> | Remember that labour is worth something.
>
> I thought this part of Marxism was the most resoundingly debunked. :)
You thought wrong :)
My labour is a salable commodity, which is why we have this idea
called 'employment'.
I may be free to choose which employer to sell my labour to (providing
that I can find some which want to purchase), and likewise I am free
to employ myself to labour on free software projects as long as I
like, for as long as I can afford to.
It may be unprofitable or stupid to do so, but then again, it may
provide entertainment value or facilitate some other process.
It really should not have to be pointed out that labour has a clear
market value, and can be bought and sold.
Marxism is not even an issue.
Erik Naggum
> Only if "zero" counts as "something"; but that's the same "something"
> as "nothing".
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| Huh? By all the measures here, labor is worth something. People can
| and do pay dearly for it, it has use value, etc.
Sure, but if you just "work" and claim that people should give you some
money, you will see that labor itself has no value. Unfortunately,
effort itself is rewarded in some forms of education, so if you work hard
on something in a counterproductive way, you still get rewarded. Some of
my teachers refused to give me high grades because I did not need to work
at all to get excellent results. (It never became clear to me what they
wanted me to do.) The same problem appears to have been at the core of
my skirmishes with the tax authories. Because I could earn enough money
keep myself comfortably supported for a whole year in three months and
did not fancy paying a lot more taxes just to get at lot less money back
from my effort, I took the rest of the year off to study or do volunteer
work (such as Emacs and SGML), but these morons thought that anyone who
does not report working nor collect unemployment benefits, must of course
be defrauding the government. I have also worked with people who got
pissed at me for suddenly figuring out how to do something a lot smarter
and cutting my development time and costs in half and still wanting to
get paid in full according to contract. If I had wasted away the extra
time and not "surprised" them with early results, they would apparently
have been a lot happier. My intolerance for morons has probably been
shaped by these experiences.
Erik Naggum
| My labour is a salable commodity, which is why we have this idea
| called 'employment'.
Well, in my culture, if you just do whatever you like when you are
employed instead of doing specifically what you are told to do as part of
your employment contract, you cease to be employed shortly thereafter. I
have no idea how your culture works, but if your employers just pay
people to "work", I think you might have a problem.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> * Paul Foley
> > Only if "zero" counts as "something"; but that's the same "something"
> > as "nothing".
>
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> | Huh? By all the measures here, labor is worth something. People can
> | and do pay dearly for it, it has use value, etc.
>
> Sure, but if you just "work" and claim that people should give you some
> money, you will see that labor itself has no value.
Nobody has claimed anything to the contrary.
Erik Naggum
| Nobody has claimed anything to the contrary.
Then you are fantastically ignorant of the history of the argument that
labor itself has value. I keep wondering if you are just ignorant or
whether you are toying with people or just playing out your fantasies so
you can ridicule people or accuse them of hypocrisy or find cause to
insult them, but some people actually try to express what they think and
have much less interest in telling other people what _they_ think. But I
guess we just have different priorities.
Brian Spilsbury
> * Brian Spilsbury
> | My labour is a salable commodity, which is why we have this idea
> | called 'employment'.
>
> Well, in my culture, if you just do whatever you like when you are
> employed instead of doing specifically what you are told to do as part of
> your employment contract, you cease to be employed shortly thereafter. I
> have no idea how your culture works, but if your employers just pay
> people to "work", I think you might have a problem.
If you just do whatever you like, then you haven't sold your labour to
the employer to do with what they wish...
Selling your labour necessarily involves it being directed by that
which you have sold it to, which is why contracts which restrict the
ends to which your labour can be put are important.
Erik Naggum
| Selling your labour necessarily involves it being directed by that which
| you have sold it to, which is why contracts which restrict the ends to
| which your labour can be put are important.
Then it is not your labor that is salabale, it is your ability to follow
orders. Thus your personal freedom and your time is for sale, and with
them your labor, but labor alone is evidently not sufficent. But more
than that, your ability to agree with the goals of your employer and work
towards these same goals without necessarily taking orders all the time,
i.e., loyalty, is what is _really_ valued. To call all this just "labor"
seems to me a severe conflation of the personal qualities involved.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> | Nobody has claimed anything to the contrary.
>
> Then you are fantastically ignorant of the history of the argument that
> labor itself has value.
I mean that nobody *here* has claimed anything to the contrary. Marx,
famously did claim that--as was clearly acknowledged in the thread.
Please keep up Erik.
Thomas
Erik Naggum
| I mean that nobody *here* has claimed anything to the contrary.
You cannot make the argument that labor has (intrinsic) value without
invoking Marxist connotations.
| Please keep up Erik.
Please start to think, Thomas. You do not argue in a vaccum.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> Please start to think, Thomas. You do not argue in a vaccum.
"vacuum"
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> | I mean that nobody *here* has claimed anything to the contrary.
>
> You cannot make the argument that labor has (intrinsic) value without
> invoking Marxist connotations.
Whatever. Your red-baiting is a waste of time.
Erik Naggum
> Please start to think, Thomas. You do not argue in a vaccum.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| "vacuum"
So this is what Thomas Bushnell has been reduced to.
Why don't you go give some poor people some free food so you can feel
good about yourself instead of continuing to be an asshole here?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> * Erik Naggum
> > Please start to think, Thomas. You do not argue in a vaccum.
>
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> | "vacuum"
>
> So this is what Thomas Bushnell has been reduced to.
Yep, since you cannot understand simple arguments. And you can't
follow simple discussions. And when someone has the temerity disagree
with you, you begin launching personal diatribes, and now it appears,
slanders.
Your brain is so firmly clamped shut that you have classed the world
into idiots and people who agree with you, and then you begin
lambasting the "idiots" for "one-bit thinking". If you showed some
simple charity, some attempt to understand others, some attempt to be
helpful rather than antagonistic, you would get some respect.
As it is, you are rather like a three-year-old child who cannot bear
to have his blanky taken away.
And so it isn't too surprising that your spelling matches.
And, as it happens, I've now spoken to some linguists about tonemes
and Norwegian. Guess what---you're wrong there too. Big surprise,
though I expect you'll just post another giant 1000 word paragraph
filled with your urine, which you seem to like to spray everywhere you
go.
Indeed, it's so much fun seeing you do it, knowing that I can simply
lift my finger and cause you go into conniptions, that I think I shall
continue to enjoy this little game.
Thomas
Erik Naggum
| Yep, since you cannot understand simple arguments. And you can't
| follow simple discussions. And when someone has the temerity disagree
| with you, you begin launching personal diatribes, and now it appears,
| slanders.
Such an open mind. Don't let the steel trap hit you on the way out.
Your need to talk about that fantasy monster that you have given my name
should be the subject of someone professional's carreer.
| Indeed, it's so much fun seeing you do it, knowing that I can simply lift
| my finger and cause you go into conniptions, that I think I shall
| continue to enjoy this little game.
I am glad you finally show your true nature, Thomas Bushnell. I am
seldom wrong about your kind, and it follows so naturally that you want
to prove me right instead of figuring out how to focus on what most other
people see as the purpose of this newsgroup. You are evil. Good luck
feeling good about yourself at the food bank. I see why you need it.
When you demonstrate so clearly your need to use other people as toys for
your own amusement, you have admitted to being a sociopath. I knew that
from early on. I am glad I could manipulate you into admitting it. Few
people do, because they usually figure out that it is self-destructive,
but the real basket cases never see how they hurt themselves. Next time
you need to use a person as a toy, try a dildo, instead. That way, no
person needs to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Nils Goesche
> Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> writes:
>
> > * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> > | "vacuum"
> >
> > So this is what Thomas Bushnell has been reduced to.
>
> Yep, since you cannot understand simple arguments. And you can't
> follow simple discussions. And when someone has the temerity disagree
> with you, you begin launching personal diatribes, and now it appears,
> slanders.
>
> Your brain is so firmly clamped shut that you have classed the world
> into idiots and people who agree with you, and then you begin
> lambasting the "idiots" for "one-bit thinking". If you showed some
> simple charity, some attempt to understand others, some attempt to be
> helpful rather than antagonistic, you would get some respect.
>
> As it is, you are rather like a three-year-old child who cannot bear
> to have his blanky taken away.
Hehe, you're talking to a mirror right now and don't even realize
it. This happens quite often here; comp.lang.lisp is really a
strange place :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID 0xC66D6E6F
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> When you demonstrate so clearly your need to use other people as toys for
> your own amusement, you have admitted to being a sociopath.
Well, if you say so...
> I knew that from early on. I am glad I could manipulate you into
> admitting it.
So you've been treating him as a toy for your own amusement? Well, if
you say so...
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> I am glad you finally show your true nature, Thomas Bushnell. I am
> seldom wrong about your kind, and it follows so naturally that you want
> to prove me right instead of figuring out how to focus on what most other
> people see as the purpose of this newsgroup. You are evil. Good luck
> feeling good about yourself at the food bank. I see why you need it.
What fun! Now I'm the epitome of evil, just because I think your
antics are alternatingly amusing and pathetic.
What is the reaction I'm supposed to have to you? Am I supposed to be
angry? Repentant? Is my sin that I don't show you the proper
obeisance?
Unfortunately for you, I have my own brain, which has detected you for
the clown you are. And well, if you want to be a clown, why should I
not indulge you, by providing you the tools necessary to go on making
a fool of yourself?! That way it's good for everyone.
Thomas
Erik Naggum
Try getting the point instead of toying with people by mincing words.
Erik Naggum
| Now I'm the epitome of evil, just because I think your antics are
| alternatingly amusing and pathetic.
No, that is not the reason. You know this, which is why you have to
pretend that it is something else.
| What is the reaction I'm supposed to have to you? Am I supposed to be
| angry? Repentant? Is my sin that I don't show you the proper obeisance?
I have already told you that your lack of thinking skills is the reason,
and you kepe proving my point.
| Unfortunately for you, I have my own brain, which has detected you for
| the clown you are. And well, if you want to be a clown, why should I
| not indulge you, by providing you the tools necessary to go on making
| a fool of yourself?! That way it's good for everyone.
Have you finally figured out what you have been doing to yourself, since
you now pretend to be in control when you so obviously are out of control?
Why do you keep ppsting? Oh, I remember, you are the guy who attacks
Kent Pitman for hypocrisy because you think it is valuable to destroy the
character of solid contributors to this forum while your contributions
are mainly character assassinations? Do you think anyone fals to notice?
But if I do not have my own opinions, only reactions, why do you keep
insulting me and posting so many lies about me? I am obviously only
reacting to your evil and destructive behavior, right? Grow a brain!
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <la...@gnus.org>
>
> Try getting the point instead of toying with people by mincing words.
Poor Erik is so persecuted.
Thomas
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> I have already told you that your lack of thinking skills is the reason,
> and you kepe proving my point.
If you think I am so deficient in thinking skills, mightn't you take a
moment to inform the people who run my graduate program? I think they
might be most interested in your perceptions. I mean, they are
putting their reputations on the line by running the risk of
officially certifying my thinking skills.
> Why do you keep ppsting? Oh, I remember, you are the guy who attacks
> Kent Pitman for hypocrisy because you think it is valuable to destroy the
> character of solid contributors to this forum while your contributions
> are mainly character assassinations? Do you think anyone fals to notice?
Oh, I still wonder about the answer to my question. He's on hiatus,
so I understand why he hasn't given one. But I really do wonder where
the line is for him between good free software and bad free software.
> But if I do not have my own opinions, only reactions, why do you keep
> insulting me and posting so many lies about me? I am obviously only
> reacting to your evil and destructive behavior, right? Grow a brain!
Oh, but I'm not posting "so many lies". I'm just happily acting as
the foil for your nastiness.
Thomas
Michael Livshin
> comp.lang.lisp is really a strange place :-)
you should try reading it just after watching a James Bond movie, like
I do now. forget drugs.
(very, very sorry for the noise.)
--
Perhaps it IS a good day to die; I say we ship it!
-- Klingon Programmer
Erik Naggum
| If you think I am so deficient in thinking skills, mightn't you take a
| moment to inform the people who run my graduate program?
Excellent! Completely irrelevant self-defense. I must have hit a nerve.
Look, you unthinking brute, just because you can behave when you are fed
your daily ration of bananas in a safe and friendly environment, does not
mean that you are not a danger to people if you are exposed to stimuli
you cannot handle, and for which _thinking_ is required. This would have
been glaringly obvious to you if you _had_ any thinking skills, so by
doing the stupid trick of defending yourself by pointing to what you do
_not_ do here, namely answer to an authority that controls your future,
you show us only that you are quite unable to realize what you do but
only behave if other people can pose a threat to you, and _that_ is
unlikely to change between contexts. Some people actually _only_ behave
when they believe they can get hurt if they do not, and react with
extreme hostility to anyone who tries to tell them to behave unless they
_also_ offer a credible threat. I think you have demonstrated very
clearly that you (1) only think when you get hurt if you do not, and (2)
revert to an extremely primitive mode of action when you fail to think.
| Oh, but I'm not posting "so many lies". I'm just happily acting as the
| foil for your nastiness.
And the purpose of this is what? Character assassination like you had to
engage in with Kent Pitman, who as far as I can see, has never hurt
_anyone_ here? Are you sure you are not completely insane who keep this
going? I mean, I only react and have no opinions of my own, in your very
own words, so this is all you fault, right? Why do you continue to post
so much hatred and think that this forum is Thomas Bushnell's personal
hate forum? I mean, you seemed to be opposed to this idea as long as you
did not engage in it yourself. And yet you attack Kent Pitman for his
supposed hypocrisy.
Let me know that you can control yourself before you try to control or
even play with others: Cease and desist.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> | If you think I am so deficient in thinking skills, mightn't you take a
> | moment to inform the people who run my graduate program?
>
> Excellent! Completely irrelevant self-defense.
It wasn't self-defense, it was a question. Or can't you tell the
difference any more?
> Let me know that you can control yourself before you try to control or
> even play with others: Cease and desist.
Whee! And around we go.
Thomas
Damond Walker
> (very, very sorry for the noise.)
You consider your message noise? Sheesh... ;)
Damond
ozan s. yigit
> ... What Heinlein did so well was write credible
> stories that explored political views that differed in important ways
> from today's prevailing views with credible what-if--scenarios based on
> possible technological futures.
he wrote irresistably readable novels that can *also* be read as (say)
endorsing McCarthyism (puppet masters), genocidal warfare (starship troopers),
racist paranoia (farnham's freehold), behaviorism (double star), power fantasy
(stranger ...) and so on (moon ...). Some people (eg. Aldiss) argue that his
grasp of politics was frail. He did transform science fiction, and everyone
seems to love his stuff. [an interesting dissection of some of his works is
found in Disch's "The Dreams Our Stuff is Made Of" and is recommended
reading.]
oz
---
[1] Brian W. Aldiss, "Billion Year Spree: The History of Science Fiction",
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973.
[2] Thomas M. Disch, "The Dreams Our Stuff is Made Of: How Science Fiction
Conquered the World", The Free Press, 1998.
Brian Spilsbury
> * Brian Spilsbury
> | Selling your labour necessarily involves it being directed by that which
> | you have sold it to, which is why contracts which restrict the ends to
> | which your labour can be put are important.
>
> Then it is not your labor that is salabale, it is your ability to follow
> orders. Thus your personal freedom and your time is for sale, and with
> them your labor, but labor alone is evidently not sufficent. But more
> than that, your ability to agree with the goals of your employer and work
> towards these same goals without necessarily taking orders all the time,
> i.e., loyalty, is what is _really_ valued. To call all this just "labor"
> seems to me a severe conflation of the personal qualities involved.
I suggest that this has conflated "labour" with "the sale of labour to
an employer".
I would agree that this a severe conflation, indeed.
It is your labour that is salable.
It is your exploitability that makes it purchasable. (Exploitability
in a non-perjorative sense).
Try substituting a word like "brick" for labour, and I think it
becomes clearer.
"Then it is not your brick which is salable, it is the ability for
your brick to be used by the buyer. Thus your brick is for sale, and
with them your lack of ability to not have had made that brick, but
brick alone is evidently not sufficient. But more than that, your
brick's ability to be used by your employer in practice is what is
really valued. To call all this just "brick" seems to me a severe
conflation of the qualities involved."
David Golden
> he wrote irresistably readable novels that can *also* be read as (say)
> endorsing McCarthyism (puppet masters), genocidal warfare (starship
> troopers), racist paranoia (farnham's freehold), behaviorism (double
> star), power fantasy (stranger ...) and so on (moon ...). Some people (eg.
> Aldiss) argue that his grasp of politics was frail.
Other people argue that sometimes he was writing to illustrate the
_problems_ of such things - in particular, Starship Troopers is pretty
clearly "the humans are the bad guys", which some people, particularly the
maker of the execrable cartoon series, seem to fail to pick up on,
despite the brick-like subtlety -
and the puppet masters is interesting because the hero is manipulated by
his father's organisation just as utterly, but more subtly, as when he is
under master control... right down to his father picking a suitable mate
for him, and using the hero's affection her to force him to go back into
the hostile zone - if anything, the "good guys" are painted as being
better puppet masters by their use of psychology to control their agents.
--
Don't eat yellow snow.
ozan s. yigit
> > he wrote irresistably readable novels that can *also* be read as (say)
> > endorsing McCarthyism (puppet masters), genocidal warfare (starship
> > troopers), racist paranoia (farnham's freehold), behaviorism (double
> > star), power fantasy (stranger ...) and so on (moon ...). Some people (eg.
> > Aldiss) argue that his grasp of politics was frail.
>
> Other people argue that sometimes he was writing to illustrate the
> _problems_ of such things - [examples]
hm. heinlein's political and philosophical makeup is pretty well established
by now; the excuse of illustration may have worked for earlier novels, but the
later ones lost enough of the narrative quality to make it too obvious what he
was really thinking. he was so well loved that some of the sharpest critics
[eg. Knight] have excused themselves from commenting on his predilections
as a result.
anyhow thanks for your rejoinder. i will be revisiting moon is a harsh
mistress (two decades later) to see what i missed when i was young and
innocent. [1996 tor edition labels it "his classic, hugo-award winning
novel of libertarian revolution"] so may have more to say on this, but
perhaps in a different forum.
oz
---
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
ozan s yigit
> ... he was so well loved that some of the sharpest critics
> [eg. Knight] have excused themselves from commenting on his predilections
> as a result.
Knight should have been Silverberg.
oz
---
you take a banana, you get a lunar landscape. -- j. van wijk
Christopher Browne
> Nils Goesche <n...@cartan.de> writes:
>> > Because public education is available even to those who do not
>> > pay taxes at all,
>>
>> Everybody pays taxes, and lots of them. Everytime you buy a
>> goddamn lolly you are paying taxes.
> In the US, public education is usually funded only by property
> taxes, which are paid only by landowners. Lessors usually
> internalize that cost, so that people who rent housing pay property
> tax indirectly too.
> However, public education is available to those who don't pay the
> tax in any way, shape, or form.
I used to live in Texas; around there, there are _high_ variations in
the quality of schools, and it is fairly strongly correlated to both:
a) Money spent per student, and
b) Tax burdens for the parents.
Dallas proper has one of the most troubled school districts, DISD,
that I've ever _heard_ of; a lot of the money they get is funnelled
into corrupt construction companies, and the students suffer from poor
equipment, crowded schools, and teachers badly enough paid that many
leap elsewhere whenever possible.
Some of the surrounding suburbs have stronger tax bases, less
corruption, and _much_ better educational results. (Money doesn't
always help, but the lack of it can _hurt_.) People actually are
known to move to places that have higher tax rates in order to get
their children into a better school district.
Property taxes are highly significant to this; there is the
fascinating result that property prices, and hence property taxes, are
higher in the better school districts.
It's not simply about "inner city" versus "suburbia," either. Some
"'burbs" can attract higher housing prices than nearby neighbours due
to having better school stats...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html
"We should start referring to processes which run in the background by
their correct technical name:... paenguins." -- Kevin M Bealer
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> I used to live in Texas; around there, there are _high_ variations in
> the quality of schools, and it is fairly strongly correlated to both:
> a) Money spent per student, and
> b) Tax burdens for the parents.
It is very strongly correlated to the *average* tax burden on the
parents in the area. But even the poorest child in that neighborhood
is allowed to go the the same public school as the rich kids.
I certainly grant that there are many problems caused by the disparate
funding of public education, and I would never say that all public
schools are equivalent or give the same quality education.
There is a huge correlation between quality of school and tax base in
the district. But all the people in the district, whatever their
income, get the same school.